Yes, there is a dearth of local reporters of quality -- but hasn't that always been the case? The tradeoff is now we have lots of raw data in the form of blogs and iphone uploads and such, but less filtering. The challenge is for local media to make the switch from thinking of themselves as the exclusive reliable data and information providers and discoverers and giving more time to data and information collection and filtering and interpretation. The more HONEST and effective they are, the more they will prosper. They are stuck in an old paradigm and cannot escape.
Sure, any day now, I'm sure it will be a commercial product, like all the other wonderful biofuel, battery, solar and other technologies being trumpeted daily all over the place. There's always a gotcha, like, "It doesn't work." Or, "It costs 3 times as much as anything else."
Go to the decision maker and say exactly what you said to Slashdot. Say you are willing to take a pay cut to get equity, or make some other offer. You are already getting a fair value for your labor, perhaps. If not, then point that out. If so, then you're going to have to do some give and take. Why is this complicated? LOL
>>...if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.
> If it didn't happen in public the public would not know about it.
When you are a celebrity the lines between public and private shift. She might have been visiting him at home, and yet it could become public knowledge from a gossipy neighbor. Regardless, the press should be free to report it. It's not like celebrities don't get compensated for their loss of privacy.
If you define "generates news traffic" as "driving news traffic to top Web sites," which the study does, then yes, Drudge is important. But who says those "top news sites" are themselves important? The implication here is that somehow more people use Drudge than Facebook for news, and I think that's debatable! Anyhow, the premise here is weird and reflects some old-school thinking.
I personally am not worried so much about how much oil is left. I'm worried about the pattern we're in with respect to it. It's polluting our planet and causing wars, regardless of the amount you say exists worldwide. I'm hoping we can get nuclear fusion working. Cheap, nearly unlimited energy would be a huge boon to all of us. Except the oil companies in the short run, but even they would benefit, taken as a collective of individuals.
I know it's old fashioned but could you actually talk to them in person and let them know what you are up to and give them permission and block them if they blow it?
I believe they also state in the article that they are looking for materials that require less energy density. Right now, it's not practical, like most pending technologies announced on Slashdot.:-) Never mind the cost, it just doesn't actually even work.:-)
I have high health standards. If a wino comes up to me and points out that I would be healthier if I lose 5 more lbs. of fat and add 10 lbs of muscle, and points out that my diet is not great, he's right, even if he's a fat slob without a job. Similarly, even if China is killing people for speaking out in a way that we abhor, their point about our reduction in freedom is absolutely accurate.
Radiation released by coal, of course, is harmless and does not elevate cancer risks, right? Has only a short half life, does it? Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):
Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons
"I can't provide any meaningful or cogent response to your position so, instead, I'll call you a name and assert that your education level is inferior to my own.
What part of "propose a hypothesis which is consistent with the existence of the moon and all other observed phenomena in the universe, which forwards our understanding of how the moon might have formed, and which makes testable predictions so it can be falsified" did you not find to be a meaningful response?
I will continue to assert that ArcherB's education in science is completely at retard level. Perhaps they have a degree in theology from some university, which I think is about as useful as the study of unicorns, or are perhaps versed in literary analysis, but their science education is clearly inferior. Demanding that science recreate the moon as evidence that science is a matter of faith demonstrates a lack of understanding of the simplest of scientific principles.
Then test and reproduce the big bang for me. Evolve a field mouse to an elephant. Recreate the moon. Make a star from scratch, complete with planets. Create matter from raw energy. Show me the curvature of space/time and recreate it in a lab. Prove that a space traveler does not age when traveling at the speed of light...
This is more evidence of what is wrong with our science education. People just don't get it. "Recreate the moon"? WTF? How about "propose a hypothesis which is consistent with the existence of the moon and all other observed phenomena in the universe, which forwards our understanding of how the moon might have formed, and which makes testable predictions so it can be falsified?" "Evolve a field mouse to an elephant?" My god, we Americans are idiots. I'm embarrassed. How about "Get an education, you retard?" Sorry, but I've had it with the ignorant arrogance of American fundamentalist whackos who slow down human progress in the name of ancient superstitions.
I cannot believe this idea. How about taking care of the real systemic budget problems and not nickel and dime us to death? If the politicians were not all corrupt, we'd have a working system, but because they spent all our money on dumb ideas and bailouts and sweetheart deals, now they need more money. Idiots.
Let's not mix up terrorism and copyright law, even if they do appear to blur together as concepts in the mind of politicians.
I think given that this *copyright case* is being brought to bear by the department of "homeland security" (how orwellian a name), I think it's a bit late to suggest not mixing the two concepts.
Pardon my ignorance, but shouldn't a 1000 W system produce 24 kWh per day, since there are 24 hours per day? Or is the 1000W input, and the 8kWh output?
Did you read what I wrote? Are you really proposing that you and four other people killing me to save five other lives would increase the well-being of more people, while at the same time increasing the cooperation between people?
Your example is idiotic and does not address my point.
Any manipulation beyond that is a deliberate attempt to derail the other person's rationality and force them into making a decision that might not be in properly alignment with their loyalties and interests, and hence is potentially harmful to the person and hence morally wrong.
Depends on your definition of morality. I like Sam Harris' definition of morality, which I will summarize as that which leads to increased well-being of the most people, while at the same time increasing cooperation between them. By that measure, you can start to have nuanced and rational debates about philosophy that don't get all fucking weird and supernatural.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there is a dearth of local reporters of quality -- but hasn't that always been the case? The tradeoff is now we have lots of raw data in the form of blogs and iphone uploads and such, but less filtering. The challenge is for local media to make the switch from thinking of themselves as the exclusive reliable data and information providers and discoverers and giving more time to data and information collection and filtering and interpretation. The more HONEST and effective they are, the more they will prosper. They are stuck in an old paradigm and cannot escape.
This could be the end of dependency on oil.
Sure, any day now, I'm sure it will be a commercial product, like all the other wonderful biofuel, battery, solar and other technologies being trumpeted daily all over the place. There's always a gotcha, like, "It doesn't work." Or, "It costs 3 times as much as anything else."
Go to the decision maker and say exactly what you said to Slashdot. Say you are willing to take a pay cut to get equity, or make some other offer. You are already getting a fair value for your labor, perhaps. If not, then point that out. If so, then you're going to have to do some give and take. Why is this complicated? LOL
>> ...if it didn't happen in public it's not public information.
> If it didn't happen in public the public would not know about it. When you are a celebrity the lines between public and private shift. She might have been visiting him at home, and yet it could become public knowledge from a gossipy neighbor. Regardless, the press should be free to report it. It's not like celebrities don't get compensated for their loss of privacy.
If you define "generates news traffic" as "driving news traffic to top Web sites," which the study does, then yes, Drudge is important. But who says those "top news sites" are themselves important? The implication here is that somehow more people use Drudge than Facebook for news, and I think that's debatable! Anyhow, the premise here is weird and reflects some old-school thinking.
I personally am not worried so much about how much oil is left. I'm worried about the pattern we're in with respect to it. It's polluting our planet and causing wars, regardless of the amount you say exists worldwide. I'm hoping we can get nuclear fusion working. Cheap, nearly unlimited energy would be a huge boon to all of us. Except the oil companies in the short run, but even they would benefit, taken as a collective of individuals.
I know it's old fashioned but could you actually talk to them in person and let them know what you are up to and give them permission and block them if they blow it?
So how long until this becomes practical on a personal scale?
You must be new here.
I believe they also state in the article that they are looking for materials that require less energy density. Right now, it's not practical, like most pending technologies announced on Slashdot. :-) Never mind the cost, it just doesn't actually even work. :-)
I have high health standards. If a wino comes up to me and points out that I would be healthier if I lose 5 more lbs. of fat and add 10 lbs of muscle, and points out that my diet is not great, he's right, even if he's a fat slob without a job. Similarly, even if China is killing people for speaking out in a way that we abhor, their point about our reduction in freedom is absolutely accurate.
Radiation released by coal, of course, is harmless and does not elevate cancer risks, right? Has only a short half life, does it? Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):
Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons
Radioactive coal has been mined, but this is not as common as you have apparently been led to believe.
Sir, I give you this link for consideration. It was the first link in my google search, which took me 10 seconds.
If we were really at war, could they really survive spending months designing an alert system?
"I can't provide any meaningful or cogent response to your position so, instead, I'll call you a name and assert that your education level is inferior to my own.
What part of "propose a hypothesis which is consistent with the existence of the moon and all other observed phenomena in the universe, which forwards our understanding of how the moon might have formed, and which makes testable predictions so it can be falsified" did you not find to be a meaningful response?
I will continue to assert that ArcherB's education in science is completely at retard level. Perhaps they have a degree in theology from some university, which I think is about as useful as the study of unicorns, or are perhaps versed in literary analysis, but their science education is clearly inferior. Demanding that science recreate the moon as evidence that science is a matter of faith demonstrates a lack of understanding of the simplest of scientific principles.
Then test and reproduce the big bang for me. Evolve a field mouse to an elephant. Recreate the moon. Make a star from scratch, complete with planets. Create matter from raw energy. Show me the curvature of space/time and recreate it in a lab. Prove that a space traveler does not age when traveling at the speed of light...
This is more evidence of what is wrong with our science education. People just don't get it. "Recreate the moon"? WTF? How about "propose a hypothesis which is consistent with the existence of the moon and all other observed phenomena in the universe, which forwards our understanding of how the moon might have formed, and which makes testable predictions so it can be falsified?" "Evolve a field mouse to an elephant?" My god, we Americans are idiots. I'm embarrassed. How about "Get an education, you retard?" Sorry, but I've had it with the ignorant arrogance of American fundamentalist whackos who slow down human progress in the name of ancient superstitions.
I'm a single guy. If I could fully telecommute, I would take a $20k pay cut for sure and spend time traveling to Europe etc.
Your crediting lawyers with keeping the government honest made me snort milk out my nose.
I cannot believe this idea. How about taking care of the real systemic budget problems and not nickel and dime us to death? If the politicians were not all corrupt, we'd have a working system, but because they spent all our money on dumb ideas and bailouts and sweetheart deals, now they need more money. Idiots.
Who says you have to charge it at home? You don't fill your car currently at home.
Let's not mix up terrorism and copyright law, even if they do appear to blur together as concepts in the mind of politicians.
I think given that this *copyright case* is being brought to bear by the department of "homeland security" (how orwellian a name), I think it's a bit late to suggest not mixing the two concepts.
Does the angle of the sun come into play here? Is it really the same at 4PM as at noon? Or is 1000 W an average?
LOL, my bad.
a 1000 W system, which produces ~8KWh per day
Pardon my ignorance, but shouldn't a 1000 W system produce 24 kWh per day, since there are 24 hours per day? Or is the 1000W input, and the 8kWh output?
Did you read what I wrote? Are you really proposing that you and four other people killing me to save five other lives would increase the well-being of more people, while at the same time increasing the cooperation between people? Your example is idiotic and does not address my point.
Any manipulation beyond that is a deliberate attempt to derail the other person's rationality and force them into making a decision that might not be in properly alignment with their loyalties and interests, and hence is potentially harmful to the person and hence morally wrong.
Depends on your definition of morality. I like Sam Harris' definition of morality, which I will summarize as that which leads to increased well-being of the most people, while at the same time increasing cooperation between them. By that measure, you can start to have nuanced and rational debates about philosophy that don't get all fucking weird and supernatural.